Has God Spoken? February 2017
Table of Contents
Has God Spoken?
God has spoken to give us the Holy Scriptures, the perfect, word-for-word, written revelation of all things partaining to life and godliness. For example, “The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, Thus speaketh the Lord God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book” (Jer 30:1-2). This issue is focused on that subject. God has also spoken by creation: “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handywork ... .There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard” (Psa. 19:1-3). Most wonderful of all, God has “spoken unto us by His Son” (Heb. 1:2).
God has spoken. As we consider this subject, a serious question for us is, Have we listened? Consider the response of King Josiah when he first heard the word of the Lord: “Shaphan the scribe showed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes. And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest ... Enquire of the Lord for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book ... because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us” (2 Kings 22:10-13). Have we done all that is written in the Book?
The Bible: Whence Is It? From Heaven or of Men?
“All Scripture Is Given by Inspiration of God”
It is of the utmost possible importance that the Lord’s people should be rooted, grounded and settled in the grand truth of the plenary inspiration of Holy Scripture, for in many quarters it has become fashionable to pour contempt upon the idea of plenary [unqualified, absolute] inspiration. Men presume to sit in judgment upon the Bible as though it were a mere human composition, and they virtually sit in judgment upon God Himself. The present result is, as might be expected, utter darkness and confusion.
God’s Book
There is nothing like Scripture. Any human writing of the same date as the Bible would be merely a curious relic of antiquity, something to be placed in a museum. The Bible, on the contrary, is God’s own book, His perfect revelation. It is a book for every age, for every class, for every condition, high and low, rich and poor, learned and ignorant, old and young. In a word, it is, as the inspired Apostle tells us, “quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb. 4:12). It deals as accurately and forcibly with the habits and customs of today as with those of the very earliest ages of human existence.
But then this book judges man—his ways, his heart. It tells him the truth about himself. Hence man does not like God’s book, and hence, too, the constant effort to pick holes in God’s blessed book. Other books are let alone, but the Bible they cannot endure, because it exposes them and tells them the truth about themselves and the world to which they belong. And was it not exactly the same with the living Word—he Son of God? Men hated Him because He told them the truth.
Absolutely Perfect
The inspired Apostle tells us, in 1 Corinthians 2:14, that “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” This is conclusive. Man in nature cannot know the things of the Spirit of God. How then can he give a judgment as to the Word of God? Surely no one has any title to be heard on a subject of which he is wholly ignorant. If God has given us a revelation of Himself, it must be absolutely perfect in every respect, and being such, it must be entirely beyond the range of human judgment. Man is no more competent to judge Scripture than he is to judge God. The Scriptures judge man, not man the Scriptures. This makes all the difference.
The Holy Spirit
But we may, perhaps, here be met by the question so often raised, “How are we to know that the book which we call the Bible is the Word of God?” Our answer to this question is a very simple one: The One who has graciously given us the blessed book can give us also the certainty that the book is from Him. The same Spirit who inspired the various writers of the Holy Scriptures can make us know that those Scriptures are the very voice of God speaking to us. It is only by the Spirit that anyone can discern this. As we have already seen, “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God . neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” If the Holy Spirit does not make us know and give us the certainty that the Bible is the Word of God, no man or body of men can possibly do it, and, on the other hand, if He does give us the blessed certainty, we do not need the testimony of man. God alone can give us the certainty that He has spoken in His Word. The true believer rests in holy tranquillity in that peerless revelation which our God has graciously given us.
Infidelity
Infidelity undertakes to tell us that God has not given us a book—could not give it. Superstition undertakes to tell us that even though God has given us a revelation, yet we cannot be assured of it without man’s authority, nor understand it without man’s interpretation. And this is precisely what the devil aims at; he wants to rob us of the Word of God. We must hold that the Scriptures, having been given of God, are complete; they speak for themselves and carry their credentials with them. God has spoken: it is ours to listen and yield an unreserved and reverent obedience. What we specially urge upon all Christians is that condition of soul, that attitude of heart expressed in those precious words of the psalmist: “Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee” (Psa. 119:11). This, we may rest assured, is grateful to the heart of God. “To this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at My word” (Isa. 66:2).
Moral Security
Here lies the true secret of moral security. Our knowledge of Scripture may be very limited, but if our reverence for it is profound, we shall be preserved from a thousand errors. And then there will be steady growth. We shall grow in the knowledge of God, of Christ and of the written Word. The Word of God will become more and more precious to our souls, and we shall be led by the powerful ministry of the Holy Spirit into the depth, fullness, majesty and moral glory of Holy Scripture. We shall be delivered completely from the withering influences of all mere systems of theology, because we have divine perfection in the Word of God—in the wide circle of divine revelation which has its eternal centre in the blessed person of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
C. H. Mackintosh (adapted)
Have We a Revelation From God?
It is evidently an all-important question: Have we a revelation from God? Have I from God a revelation of His mind which is authentic and authoritative, such that I can know from Himself what God is?
I cannot trust in man, for without a revelation from God, man is lost in what degrades human nature. To have something on which I can rest, I need two things: I must have a revelation from God, and I also must have it communicated authentically to be able to reckon it. Man wants a god, but universal heathenism is the witness that men have not known God, nor His character, without a revelation. I cannot find a man among them that is not degraded, for he deifies his passions and adds degradation to them. More than this, they have not liked retaining Him in their knowledge when He was revealed to them.
The Word of God
And where is the Word of God? Where it always was, as light is in the sun. Those who have eyes walk, as they ever did, in its full, clear, and divinely-given light. It shines as it ever did, and the entering in of the Word gives light and understanding to the simple. They have a nature that can estimate it in the true character God gave it, which learned men have not, for He hides these things from the wise and prudent and reveals them unto babes. “They shall be all taught of God” is the declaration of the Lord and the prophet for those who can hear.
That the Old Testament scriptures were collected into their present form a good while before the Lord was on earth, no one is contesting; indeed, far from it, for Christ owns the divisions which now exist. Josephus tells us expressly that there are not a multitude of books, but just twenty-two; they had histories and writings after Artaxerxes, but these had not the same authority; they were not tested by prophets. That the books were collected, we can thank God for. Whether the history of Ruth is connected with Judges, or the Lamentations with Jeremiah, is of no consequence. Their place in the history is plain upon the face of them. To the believer, it is not a question of who wrote Ruth. He receives them as the Word of God; God is their author. It is also true that, in collecting the books, short notes may have been added, such as, “There they are to this day,” or other brief notes of this kind. These in no way affect the revelation. The book clearly shows that as a whole it is inspired and ordered in its structure by God, and when all this was done to make it a whole, this divine ordering of God’s hand and wisdom may be in such notes as elsewhere. The question is, Is this book given to us of God as a revelation, given to us as it is? Is what is in it revealed of God, or man’s thoughts?
An Account of God’s Ways
The book professes to be an account of all God’s ways from the creation (and even in purpose before it) till the Lord comes, and even to the end of time, till God can say, “It is done; I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending.” It professes further to give us a revelation of the Father in the Son. Is this immense undertaking a revelation of God, or only a development of national life in a little petty nation? “No man hath seen God at any time: the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him” (John 1:18). Is this a revelation of God or not? That is, is the account I have of God, as God has given it to us? Otherwise it is no revelation to me or to anyone else.
These are serious questions, and the very undertaking proves its source. Had man done it, what should we have had? What have we outside this wondrous book? Man’s theory is that it is an imposture, but if so, it is the holiest production that ever appeared in the world, bearing to everyone that has any moral sensibilities a divine stamp upon it, which nothing else in the world has! Even Rousseau was forced to say, “It would have been a greater miracle for man to invent such a life as Christ’s, than to be it.”
J. N. Darby (adapted)
The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible
Of all those great items of scriptural truth which are fundamental in their character, the one which forms our present theme stands first. Now that our Lord and His apostles are gone from this world, we have those revelations which are conveyed to us in writings, divinely inspired and therefore of full authority, and forming the basis of the faith today. Until therefore the inspiration and authority of the Bible are fully and firmly settled in our souls, it is hardly worth proceeding to establish from its pages those further truths which at first sight may appear to be of a still more fundamental character.
Before Man’s Creation
In the Old Testament, three things strike us. First, that in the opening chapters we are told of things completely outside the range of the observation of any human writer—things that could not be possessed apart from a divine revelation, since happenings before man’s creation are recounted. Further, these things are stated not in terms befitting human speculation but with the quiet ring and assurance of absolute knowledge and, therefore, of truth.
Human History
Second, in all the historical books we find features utterly unknown in all human histories. We may specify such a feature as the complete absence of all hero worship. Men, indeed, there are approved of God, but even so their failings are recounted, and all with a lofty detachment from human passions and prejudices, with an impartial and serene judgment which is found only in God Himself. Or, again, we notice that matters that we never should have even mentioned are dwelt upon at considerable length, such as the passages Judges 17, 18:14-26, and 1 Samuel 1:4 to 2:11, while things we should have thought worthy of much notice are ignored. For example, the great earthquake in the reign of Uzziah is never mentioned historically, and we should have no knowledge that the great catastrophe happened were it not for two passing allusions in Amos and Zechariah. The historical books, in short, are only “history” insofar as its recital serves the purpose of illuminating the purposes or the ways of God.
“Thus Saith the Lord”
Third, in the prophets we cannot but feel the directness of their appeal. No hesitation, no apologies, but the most direct and emphatic “Thus saith the Lord” repeated again and again. The Word of God came through their lips and pens, and its powerful appeal to heart and conscience is perceptible today in the hostility that their words still awaken in sinful men, as well as in the way of subduing men’s hearts with a view to their ultimate blessing.
When we reach the New Testament, we find plain endorsements of the inspiration and authority of the Old, first from the lips of our Lord Himself, and then from the evangelists in their frequent references to the fulfillment of Old Testament scripture in the life and death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. “That it might be fulfilled” and “that the scripture might be fulfilled” are words that we read over and over again. In the epistles, too, we have inspiration clearly claimed for the Old Testament writers.
In the New Testament, we have the Apostle Paul claiming inspiration for verbal utterances of his own and of the other apostles when conveying the truths of divine revelation. Further, in the introductory verses to his Gospel, we have Luke claiming a “perfect understanding of all things from the very first,” and also that he wrote “in order” or “with method,” so that in result Theophilus might “know the certainty” of the things he had previously received. In the Revelation we have the Apostle John receiving the revelation, bearing record of it, and in result producing “the words of this prophecy” (Rev. 1:1-3), and finally pronouncing a solemn curse on any who should dare to tamper with those “words” as originally given (Rev. 22:18-19). Here, again verbal inspiration is assumed.
Revelation
First Corinthians 2 is perhaps the most striking chapter bearing upon this subject, for here we are permitted to see the process that God has been pleased to ordain for the communication of His thoughts to His people. Here are three distinct steps and a distinct action of the Holy Spirit of God in connection with each.
The first step is that of revelation. The things prepared of God for those that love Him, things unseen, unheard, and unimagined by man, have been made known by the Spirit of God, who is thoroughly competent for such work, as the end of verse 10 shows. Verse 11 goes further and declares that the Spirit of God is the only possible source of such revelations. Now these Spirit-given revelations reached, not the world, not even all saints, but the apostles and prophets (see Eph. 3:5), who are the “us” of verse 10, and having received them, they proceeded to convey them to others. Hence the “we” of verse 13 indicates the “us” of verse 10.
Inspiration and Appropriation
The second step, then, is that of inspiration. God took care that the apostles and prophets should convey these revelations to others under supervision of a direct and divine kind. They were not left to exercise their own wisdom regarding the best way of stating the truth, but were guided by the Holy Spirit in the exact words they used, as verse 13 teaches.
Third comes the step of appropriation. The truth having been revealed to men chosen of God, and by them communicated in inspired words, it must now be received or appropriated if it is to have an enlightening and controlling effect upon men. Of this verse 14 speaks. No natural man—that is, man in his natural or unconverted condition—can possibly receive these things. He totally lacks the faculty that would enable him to receive them. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. Believers have “the mind of Christ” and have received the Spirit of God that they may “know the things that are freely given to us of God.”
Revelation is concerned with the transference of truth from the mind of God to the minds of apostles and prophets, so that the conception and understanding of it might be theirs.
Inspiration is concerned with the transference of the same truth from the minds of the apostles and prophets to all the saints, and for this not merely thoughts but words were needed. But if human words are to be the proper expression of divine truth, they must be chosen and used with perfect fitness and accuracy, and this was secured by the action of the Holy Spirit. “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:21).
The Holy Spirit
Sometimes, indeed, this action of the Holy Spirit took so powerful a form as to overleap necessary limitations that existed in the mind of the prophet in question, and caused him to write things, the real and full meaning of which he knew not, and so it came to pass that some, if not all, the writers of Old Testament scripture had to enquire and search diligently concerning the meaning of that which they themselves had written. In answer to their search it was further revealed to them that they were writing for the benefit of saints in the future—the saints of the present dispensation. This being so, the full import of their inspired writings necessarily remained vague and indistinct to their own minds. There was full inspiration, but no full revelation save to future generations. First Peter 1:10-12 tells us about this and proves how powerful and real a thing inspiration is.
The kind of inspiration spoken of in 1 Peter 1:10-12 largely characterized the Old Testament writers, and inasmuch as the prophets, who in these cases were the vehicles of the messages, were uninstructed as to the full purport of their words, it may be described, for want of a better term, as unintelligent inspiration.
Intelligent Inspiration
The kind of inspiration mentioned in 1 Corinthians 2 is that which almost entirely characterizes the New Testament writings, and may, by contrast, be termed intelligent inspiration. The possible exception to the rule, which leads us to insert the word “almost” in the above statement and italicize it, is the case of some parts of the Revelation. It is quite likely that some of the visions and statements in that remarkable unveiling of the future were obscure to John the seer as they are to us, and that they will only stand out clear in their full and distinct meaning to saints of the coming tribulation period. The famous number 666 (Rev. 13:18) is the most pronounced example of what we mean.
The above distinction may be helpful to those who would study the question a little more closely. It must never be overlooked, however, that whether unintelligent or intelligent, the fact and degree of inspiration is in both cases exactly the same. It is written not for the lazy, but for diligent searchers for truth and guidance like the Berean Jews (Acts 17), who read it in faith and dependence on God. Only thus do we “rightly divide” (2 Tim. 2:15) its contents and obtain light and wisdom from God.
F. B. Hole (adapted)
Study Bibles
We know that the Bible, the Word of God, is addressed to man from God with all authority. As such, man is responsible to reverence it, to read it, to learn from it, and to obey it. But because it is the Word of God, coming from an infinite God, and conveying truth connected with Him, of necessity there is much in the Word of God that is beyond reason. Paul tells us that “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God ... because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14). But the Spirit of God is able to apply the Word of God to our hearts and consciences, first of all to make us feel our need of a Savior, and then, after we are saved, to use it to minister Christ to our souls.
Understanding the Word
In the Old Testament, much that was given was not clearly understood, even by those who truly had new life. This was also true of those who were inspired to write the Word. When they asked for more light, they were told that what they had written was for a future day—the day in which we are living now (see 1 Peter 1:11-12). In the light of the New Testament, the Old Testament has become clearer, for all the counsels of God are now revealed. However, there are depths of truth in the Word of God that cannot totally be searched out, even in a lifetime. Yet in this the day of His grace, God would have us to increase in “the knowledge of the Son of God” (Eph. 4:13) and “in all wisdom and spiritual understanding” (Col. 1:9). To this end, He has not only given the Spirit of God to indwell every true believer, but also has given to the church those with real gift, “for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:12). We do well not to neglect these gifts to the church, while at the same time feeling our own responsibility to read and meditate upon God’s Word.
Commentaries
One of the ways by which we can make use of these gifts is to read written commentaries on the Word of God. While many books have been written along this line, believers have also appreciated so-called “study Bibles.” Strictly speaking, the term “study Bible” can refer merely to a translation that facilitates the study of the Bible. More commonly, however, it refers to a Bible complete with notes and other features that enable the reader to study the text. These can be a help in understanding the Scriptures, while, of course, not being a substitute for personal meditation. As we have already mentioned, every true believer is indwelt with the Holy Spirit, who is there to “guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).
Study Bibles
Although there has been a tremendous proliferation of study Bibles during the past 20-25 years, the concept is not new. As far back as the reformation, and even before, translations of the Bible such as William Tyndale’s challenged the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in its notes. The Geneva Bible (circa 1560) emphasized the teachings of John Calvin, again seeking, for the most part, to refute Roman Catholic doctrine. The King James Bible (1611) did not have notes, and it was the accepted translation for more than three hundred years, but beginning about one hundred years ago, once again study Bibles began to appear. The most well-known of these is probably the Scofield Bible, with fairly copious notes supporting a dispensational view of Scripture. About the same time, F. C. Thompson’s chain reference Bible appeared, which was more doctrinally objective. But beginning in the 1990s, a virtual explosion of study Bibles occurred. Some of these were connected with prominent names such as John F. MacArthur and Charles Ryrie, while others were connected with publishing firms such as Zondervan and Thomas Nelson. Still others were produced with certain groups in mind and to address specific problems, such as Zondervan’s “NIV Women’s Devotional Bible” and Tyndale’s “The Life Recovery Bible.” Needless to say, the number of choices can be bewildering.
Doctrinal Issues
Two things are necessary for a good study Bible: (1) a good literal translation and (2) notes that emphasize the whole truth of God. This is where the difficulty begins, for most study Bibles, going all the way back to Calvin’s Geneva Bible, embody the spiritual bias of the author in both the translation and the notes. The notes in the Geneva Bible teach Calvinistic doctrine, and they have rather strongly worded and flawed interpretations of Revelation. Other study Bibles support erroneous systems such as covenant theology (reconstructionism) or charismatic practices, and the most liberal even cast doubt on the full, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures.
Where then does this leave us? It should be evident that great care is needed before using a study Bible, for errors, once learned, are often hard to unlearn. On the other hand, some of these study Bibles teach a great deal of truth, as, for example, the Geneva Bible, already mentioned. It was probably the first Bible in the English language to be widely used, and it was of incalculable value until the King James Version appeared more than fifty years later. The danger is that when a great deal of truth is mixed with a small amount of error, the weight of the truth tends to support the error, and because the reader is taken off guard, the error is accepted as truth. In a world that is now characterized by “every wind of doctrine” (Eph. 4:14), we need to be constantly on our guard and to heed our Lord’s admonition, “Take heed therefore how ye hear” (Luke 8:18).
Good Translations
The best translations are those made by men who walked in the fear of God and in the whole truth of God. Mere scholarship, while highly desirable, is not enough to guarantee an accurate translation of the Scriptures. Likewise, we must remember that “the scope of no prophecy of scripture is had from its own particular interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20 JND). That is, no part of the Word of God can be interpreted apart from its relationship with the whole of Scripture, for “all scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:16). The Word of God hangs together as one complete whole; when interpreted properly, all is in complete harmony. Likewise, the best notes are those written by men who have imbibed and walked in the whole truth of God, as opposed to those who have been associated with ecclesiastical error. We can never learn “all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) from those who do not walk in it.
Some may argue that the King James translators certainly did not know or walk in the whole truth of God. This is true, but many of them, especially the Puritans, were walking up to the light they had, and they earnestly sought to translate the Word of God accurately. They were not willfully turning away from light that had been set before them, nor were they trying to introduce systematized error.
The Correct Approach
This raises one final point. Do we need a study Bible at all? I would suggest that while they can be helpful, there may be a tendency to rely on such notes, instead of allowing the Word of God to speak directly to us. An old brother once gave good advice, which I pass on. He said, “Read the pure Word of God by itself; then meditate and form your own thoughts on it. Then turn to good, reliable written ministry and read from the relevant passage. If it agrees with your own thoughts, or expands on them, that is good. If not, get on your knees and ask the Lord to show you what is right.” Having adopted this approach for many years, I can attest to the fact that it works.
For the serious student of the Word of God, J. N. Darby’s translation, with its notes, is unparalleled for clear light as to the meaning of Scripture. The notes do not teach doctrine, but rather seek to make the meaning of the text clear. Then, for a commentary, J. N. Darby’s Synopsis of the Books of the Bible is again unparalleled for its clear and reliable exposition of the Word. At times the sentences can be hard to understand, but time spent in reading it well repays the effort. Also, it cannot be read without reading and knowing the Word of God, for its constant quotations of Scripture and references to it are done as if the reader already recognizes the passage. Those who do not recognize it are compelled to look it up, and thus the reader is constantly sent back to the pure Word of God, that “liveth and abideth forever” (1 Peter 1:23).
We hasten to say that this final comment is not meant to discourage any use of study Bibles, but merely to point out that they are not entirely necessary in order to understand the Scriptures. If we feel led to use a study Bible, let us, on the one hand, remember the potential pitfalls, and, on the other hand, remember that no commentary is a substitute for the pure Word of God.
W. J. Prost
Modern English Translations
No one would suggest that translation is an easy task. Languages differ considerably in grammatical structure, vocabulary and idioms. The expression “lost in translation” is all too often true! With the Bible there are additional complexities. The languages being translated are ancient and differ from their modern counterparts. Furthermore, there are those variations found in the original manuscripts. Although in the majority of cases choosing a translation should be objective, there are clearly times when it will be subjective—and indeed must be. One’s belief (or lack thereof) will affect the translation, and when it comes to the Holy Scriptures this is most significant. In fact, to make the translation of the Bible a human and not a spiritual endeavor is a serious mistake.
Though a little ahead of ourselves, let us consider an example of what we have been discussing from the New International Version (the NIV). The translation for Hebrews 1:5 appears to be a combination of an overzealous desire to rid the text of archaic words and, at best, a lack of understanding of the eternal sonship of Christ. The text in question is a quotation from Psalm 2 and is translated: “You are my Son; today I have become your Father” (Heb. 1:5a NIV). Neither the Greek text nor the Hebrew of Psalm 2:7 contains any thought of God becoming a Father to the Son. It is quite simply false and suggests that the Son did not become son, in fact, until His birth. We should note, lest there be any confusion, that the second part of that same verse reads: “And again, I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son” (Heb. 1:5b KJV). At first glance, this may appear to contradict what has just been said; it does not. It speaks of the Father’s care for the Son in manhood—He would be to Him a Father; again, it is not saying that He would become a Father to Him. Incidentally, the NIV footnote reads begotten which is correct.
New Manuscripts
As time has gone on, new manuscripts have been discovered and adjustments have been made to the Greek text. I wish, for a moment, to turn our attention to the work of Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. Beginning in 1853 they worked for twenty-eight years to produce a Greek New Testament consisting of the so-called critical text—it was published in 1881. They were neither the first nor the only men who labored in this regard. Whereas Erasmus’ work, and as a result the Textus Receptus, may have been unduly influenced by the Byzantine texts, Westcott and Hort’s work was heavily biased toward Alexandrian texts—especially the Codex Vaticanus (commonly identified by the letter B) and the Codex Sinaiticus (identified by the Hebrew letter aleph, א). While the former had been held by the Vatican since the fifteenth century, the latter was discovered in 1844, and it captivated many, including Westcott and Hort. Although the Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest complete Bible (it dates from 325 A.D.), age alone does not decide the superiority of a text. In fact, the Sinaiticus codex contains numerous marginal corrections.
Westcott and Hort
As to Westcott and Hort themselves, there is much to concern us as to their Christian faith. In a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Westcott wrote, “No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history—I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think that they did—yet they disclose to us a Gospel.” Westcott viewed the creation story as poetry and not literal. As to the Lord’s appearing, Hort viewed this as figurative. He wrote concerning 1 Peter 1:7, “There is nothing in either this passage or others on the same subject, apart from the figurative language of Thessalonians, to show that the revelation here spoken of is to be limited to a sudden preternatural theophany. It may be a long and varying process, though ending in a climax. Essentially it is simply the removal of the veils which hide the unseen Lord, by whatsoever means they become withdrawn.” A great deal of material is available as to these men; nevertheless, in researching some of the more common accusations made against them, it must be sadly acknowledged that many quotations are taken out of context. That does not mean to say that I agree with them; their statements are usually shrouded in an intellectualism that makes them open to interpretation and difficult to represent accurately in a few sentences. Darby and Kelly, contemporaries of Westcott and Hort, used language far more moderate compared to the violent attacks now brought against them. Unfortunately, nothing is terribly surprising as to the views expressed in the quotations given above. It is the sad, lifeless expression of rationalism and liberalism (they seem to go hand-in-hand) of which the Apostle Paul warned Timothy: “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away” (2 Tim. 3:5). It is with a note of caution, therefore, that we observe that the influence of these two men over Bible translation since their time has been considerable. The critical text they prepared has formed the basis of many modern versions of the New Testament.
By no means do I wish to paint Westcott and Hort as being solely responsible for the questionable renderings in our modern translations. Many translations, including that of the King James, have been undertaken by a committee. The New International Version prides itself in the broad range of denominations and nationalities involved in the translation: “Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Brethren, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical Free, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Wesleyan and other churches—helped to safeguard the translation from sectarian bias.” Rather than safeguarding the truth, such diversity has every potential for compromising the truth.
Methods of Translation
Before we leave this subject of modern translations, we must address two alternate methods of translation. These go by the rather lofty names of dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence. They may be more simply understood as sense-for-sense and word-for-word translation. Clearly, no readable translation is ever literally word-for-word; nevertheless, since we believe in the inspiration of the very words themselves, a faithful translation should be as close to literal as possible. The King James, Darby, American Standard, Revised Standard, and English Standard are examples of those that use varying degrees of the word-for-word approach. At the other end of the spectrum, however, we have those translations which merely attempt to convey the sense of the original text, that is to say, a sense-for-sense translation. The New International Version and various other modern translations use this methodology. Then there are those translations which go further still; these are the paraphrased versions. As we move from word-for-word to sense-for-sense and then into paraphrasing, the translation becomes increasingly subjective. At some point, it ceases to be Scripture. At best, it may be viewed as a commentary; at worse, a corruption of the Word of God. The reader is encouraged in the strongest of terms to stay away from these.
Readability Versus Accuracy
In a related vein, improving the readability through the modernization of the English is a stated goal of all modern translations. It is true that the English of the King James may be difficult for some. The use of thou, thee, thy, and thine, with their related verb forms, and even the use of you and ye, is foreign to many modern readers. Incidentally, these words were not used in the King James to make it more reverent. They were used because the original Hebrew and Greek used these pronouns and verb forms. Thou is the second-person singular pronoun in familiar speech, whereas you is the second-person plural. Thou corresponds to the French tu and the Spanish tú. The other forms of thou—thee, thy and thine—follow the same pattern as me, my and mine. When the Lord addresses Peter and says, “When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren” (Luke 22:32), this is singular; He is talking to Peter. Immediately prior to this, however, the Lord had said: “Satan hath desired to have you” (vs. 31). This is plural; the Lord was speaking to all of His disciples and not just Peter. F. F. Bruce notes that the Revised Standard Version “blurred some of the finer distinctions in New Testament wording which, while they are of little importance to the general reader, have some significance for those who are concerned with the more accurate interpretation of the text.” No doubt, this was not a specific reference to the abandonment of the archaic, second-person singular forms; nevertheless, the observation remains true. Despite the reference to the general reader, no matter who we are (and perhaps more so, when we have no knowledge of the original language), we have every reason to be concerned for the accuracy of the text.
Even though the pronouns thou and thee were not terms of reverence in the days of King James, they ultimately became that. In modernizing the English of the Scriptures, it has become more familiar in tone, and it might be added, this has done nothing to stem the tide of irreverence so characteristic of this present day. “These filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities” (Jude 8).
The Darby Translation
It is rather remarkable that while the established Church was working on a revision of the King James, we find, in quiet obscurity, John Nelson Darby working on a translation of the New Testament. This was first published in 1867, with revised editions in 1872 and 1884. The complete Bible was published posthumously in 1890. It was never Darby’s intent to replace the King James. His desire was to provide a resource to the student of Scripture. In his preface he gives his rationale for his translation. “I have used all helps I could, but the translation is borrowed in no way from any; it is my own translation, but I have used every check I could to secure exactness. I believe the scriptures to be the inspired word of God, received by the Holy Ghost and communicated by His power, though, thank God, through mortal men: what is divine made withal thoroughly human, as the blessed Lord Himself whom it reveals, though never ceasing to be divine. And this is its unspeakable value: thoroughly and entirely divine, ‘words which the Holy Ghost teacheth,’ yet perfectly and divinely adapted to man as being by man. My endeavor has been to present to the merely English reader the original as closely as possible. Those who make a version for public use must of course adapt their course to the public. Such has not been my object or thought, but to give the student of scripture, who cannot read the original, as close a translation as possible.“ As to the Darby Translation, F. F. Bruce makes this observation: “In the New Testament especially it is based on a sound critical appraisal of the evidence, and was consulted by the company which prepared the Revised New Testament of 1881.”
Tests of Fidelity
If, as the preface to the Revised Standard Version states, the King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying, how are we to trust it? Firstly, a translation that stood essentially alone for 300 years, to the great blessing of the English-speaking world, speaks for itself. Secondly, the King James translation calls into doubt no doctrinal positions—not the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, His death, His resurrection—no, nothing! This cannot be said of some modern revisions. The greater danger, it seems to me, is in the use of a modern translation with its doubtful interpretations. It seems as if every committee of modern time has blundered down some path or another in an attempt to arrive at the original Greek or to present it in modern English. This is not to say that every modern translation is inherently evil or that they offer no benefit to the Bible student. Nevertheless, they should be used wisely and with an understanding as to their origin and character. I would rather trust the Darby translation, as I know where the translator stood on questions of doctrine, than trust myself to a committee consisting of Evangelicals, Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox, Unitarians, Jews—believers and unbelievers alike.
N. Simon, The Holy Scriptures (adapted)
Apocryphal Books
The word Apocrypha literally means obscure. It is a title used to describe books of doubtful origin and questionable authorship, which have nevertheless been found in association with the Scriptures. We find certain apocryphal books included in the Septuagint; we also find a number of religious scrolls of an apocryphal character among the Dead Sea Scrolls. This mingling of texts has led to confusion and has opened the door for some to question the canon of Scripture. For the Roman Catholic church, the canonicity of certain apocryphal books was explicitly affirmed by the Council of Trent in 1546 A. D. (A Roman Catholic ecumenical council). There are, nevertheless, strong reasons why these books have been rejected as the inspired Word of God by both Protestant Christians and Jews alike.
Why They Are Rejected
The most overlooked reason why these books have been rejected as the Word of God is simply because they are obviously not inspired! Some people have the impression that canonicity was decided by a committee many years removed from the original authorship. In fact, Heinrich Graetz hypothesized that the canon of the Old Testament was decided by the council of Jamnia around 90 A. D. This view has since been discredited as insupportable conjecture. It never seems to occur to scholars that God gave man a revelation, and that it was received as such by the faithful to whom it was addressed. Quite frankly, many of the so-called apocryphal books were rejected because they were plainly interlopers—they pretended to be something they were not. However, I do not want to be accused of highhandedness; if the apocryphal books were not inspired, there will be evidence to this effect.
The Jews themselves did not treat the Apocryphal books as Scripture. Neither Josephus (a Jewish historian, circa 37 – 100 A. D.) nor Philo (an Alexandrian Jewish philosopher, circa 20 B. C. – 40 A. D.) quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired. More importantly, none of the New Testament authors, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, or Jude quoted from these books. Jude may be offered by some as an exception, but I will address this shortly. The so-called church fathers spoke out against the Apocrypha—for example, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius. Jerome (340 – 420 A. D.), the translator of the Latin Vulgate Bible, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Writing in his prologue to the books of Solomon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs), Jerome says, “The church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the church.” Martin Luther and the other reformers rejected the Apocrypha as canonical.
The Rest of Scripture
Aside from its silence, how does the rest of Scripture judge the Apocrypha? The character of these books and the doctrines they uphold are at variance with the inspired Word of God. As an example, the Roman Catholic practice of praying for the dead is taken from the apocryphal book of Second Maccabees (2 Macc. 12:44-46) (Keep in mind, the Roman Catholic Church, at the counter-reformation council of Trent, conferred full canonical status on the Apocrypha). Truly, such prayers are vain and useless. Indeed, how shall we escape if in this life we reject salvation (Heb. 2:3)? There is no way. The Lord confirms the fixed state of the dead in the account of the rich man and Lazarus—“Beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence” (Luke 16:26).
The Prophecy of Enoch
As to the book of Jude, Jude gives us a prophesy from Enoch—“Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him” (Jude 14-15). Among the Dead Sea Scrolls there are multiple manuscripts of a text known as the book of Enoch; Jude’s prophesy is found in it. Interestingly, this book was not included by the Jewish translators of the Septuagint, and it has never gained traction among Jews and Christians alike. No copy has ever been found in the Hebrew language; all the Enoch scrolls found at Qumran are in Aramaic. The book has five sections, the first of which is occupied with fallen angels and a fanciful interpretation of Genesis 6:4. It reads like Greek mythology and not Scripture; man’s occupation with such salacious topics continues with the popular media of this present day. The book of Enoch was most likely written subsequent to Jude’s epistle, with the author using the prophecy given by Jude to offer legitimacy to the text. Given the unusual nature of Enoch’s life (Gen. 5:21-24) it naturally excites much interest. That someone should take Jude’s quotation and build a text around it is hardly surprising. Such pseudepigraphical texts (The false credit of authorship to give writings greater legitimacy) were not uncommon. Regardless, it is incongruous to believe that Jude sourced his quotation from such a book, and, as did the early Christians, we receive his short epistle as the inspired Word of God and reject the book of Enoch.
The Merit of Apocrypha Books
As to the merit of the books of the Apocrypha, Maccabees I and II provide us with an historic account of that silent period between the Old and New Testaments. Nevertheless, we receive them as one would the writings of Josephus, Julius Caesar, Herodotus, or any other secular historian. As to the remaining books, they are of interest to one studying the period, but unlike Jerome, I cannot recommend them, even for edification, if the Scriptures themselves make no such commendation.
I find it rather striking that a fellow high school student, a self-proclaimed atheist, found the apocryphal books the most enjoyable when he actually read the Bible. Should it surprise us that these had the greatest resonance with the natural man? “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (2 Cor. 2:14). To complete the story, many years later I heard that this man had been saved! Truly, we marvel at the grace of God. It reminds me of the verse—“Because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth” (Rev. 3:16). Truly, indifference is often a greater enemy to the soul than outright hostility.
N. Simon, The Holy Scriptures
Translation of the Bible
The truth is that there is no security even in the most accurate and comprehensive scholarship without the teaching of the Spirit, if the subject matter be the Scriptures. Christian translators may often fail through ignorance of idiom, but a worldly scholar never can be trusted at all, spite of consummate linguistic skill, because of his necessary lack of still deeper qualifications. He knows not God and His Son, and has not therefore the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the intelligence of the truth.
W. Kelly
The Book of Books
(Written by a mother to her daughter)
In this Book, my child, I give you
Food and drink and golden store,
And a sword that will protect you,
Pleasures, too, forevermore.
As you journey on life’s pathway,
Hasten not, but stop, and drink;
And when earthly things entice you,
Of eternal treasures think.
Think of Him, who left the glory—
Left His Father’s loving side;
All to tell your heart the story
Of the Bridegroom and the Bride.
And to open wide the palace,
Where He waits to welcome you;
And the bitter in life’s chalice
Will be drained with joy by you.
In it you will find the fashion
Of the spotless robe He gives,
That will cover all the passion,
And the sin that He forgives.
Thus, sweet child, in faith press onward,
Trusting, loving, satisfied,
Till in Jesus’ name you conquer,
And in Jesus’ love abide.
F. M. Beckwith